*** Official Politics Shitposting Thread ***

[Savy]

A couple of them were good, too many were more idealistic concepts which whilst holding potential really lacked the time and effort to develop into something better.

Much like your marriage.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Knock it off Savy.
Don't make me stop this car.

[MadMojoMonkey]

@Nanners: When you're not fighting me, you're on fire with good posts and solid points, lately.

I'll agree to give you some space.

Just ... you know... try not to blow everything up.

[BananaStand]

@Nanners: When you're not fighting me, you're on fire with good posts and solid points, lately.

I'll agree to give you some space.

Just ... you know... try not to blow everything up.

I'm not sure what kind of face-saving measure you're attempting here. But just know that nothing you say influences my behavior at all.

It amazes me that you're still trying.

[OngBonga]

Both massive fgts but MMM actually has value.

Both have value. Banana's is more subtle and only becomes apparent when he's banned. He gives you lot something to talk about. If he were permabanned, then one of two things (or both) happens to the commune...
1) it becomes a circle jerk of people patting each other on the back,
2) I get bored and become the new banana, only I can't get banned unless gmml himself gets annoyed with me.

banana's only problem for me is his lack of respect for other people. But that's hardly a surprise since no one shows him any respect. Respect is a two-way street. There's a fucking cliche.

The insults come in from every direction. And none of the insults are discriminatory or defamatory. Nobody is insulting anyone based on race, and nobody is accusing anyone of disgusting sexual behaviour. It's just "idiot" and "cuck" and the like. And everytime I see anyone insult someone else, it is always in the context of the discussion, it's not like banana or anyone else is ignoring the debate and only throwing insults around.

Apart from savy just. I dunno if savy is trying to get himself banned or trying to bait banana into responding in a way that gets him banned, but what you just did was show us what banana isn't doing. If he were, this would've been dealt with long ago.

I'm not sure what kind of face-saving measure you're attempting here. But just know that nothing you say influences my behavior at all.

It's an attempt to de-escalate. It's the big thing to do. I don't think he wants to throw shit back and forth at you. Someone has to stop throwing shit, and it doesn't look like you will. If he wants to back off, let him. Just drop it now please.

[BananaStand]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/09/21...legal-pot.html

Hey Ong, I hope you didn't ever want to visit America

[OngBonga]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/09/21...legal-pot.html

Hey Ong, I hope you didn't ever want to visit America

Only for WSOP, which is a pipe dream. And if it ever looks like it could happen, I could lie.

[BananaStand]

Only for WSOP, which is a pipe dream. And if it ever looks like it could happen, I could lie.

Why is it a pipe dream? Just sign up and play

[OngBonga]

I'd need to sat my way in. Maybe one day I can take a $500 pop but that'll be like 1 in 20 qualifiers if it's just the buyin.

[BananaStand]

I'd need to sat my way in. Maybe one day I can take a $500 pop but that'll be like 1 in 20 qualifiers if it's just the buyin.

Dude...you can save up $10K, plus expenses, by WORKING between now and the WSOP.

You're really telling me you can't flip burgers for a year if it means that you get to realize your lifelong dream?

[OngBonga]

It's not that important to me that I'll do horrible work for a year. I mean, I can bust out first fucking day. If I actually did this, I don't think I would be capable of playing anywhere near my A-game, since I'd be afraid of going bust. I'd get walked over.

I'll only take a shot at it if I'm happy to lose my investment in an instant, that allows me to play with freedom.

[Poopadoop]

Dude...you can save up $10K, plus expenses, by WORKING between now and the WSOP.

You're really telling me you can't flip burgers for a year if it means that you get to realize your lifelong dream?

He'd not only have to flip burgers for a year, he'd have to keep himself from spending the money on test tubes and shit.

[BananaStand]

He'd not only have to flip burgers for a year, he'd have to keep himself from spending the money on test tubes and shit.

You're not seeing the big picture....

Flipping burgers allows him to INVEST in more test tubes and shit. Then he can sell them for a profit. More burgers, more test tubes, more profit, more test tubes, more profit!

[oskar]

Speaking of Nicki Minaj, I wanna know why black people with blond hair isn't 'cultural appropriation'

The implication being that white girls with black hair are accused of 'cultural appropriation'. Can you give me some evidence of that ever happening in the history of time?

[oskar]

And we're still at: the smartest Trump has ever sounded from your perspective was when he was reading something that his aides wrote down for him. Are we settling on that, or do you have something to add?

[BananaStand]

And we're still at: the smartest Trump has ever sounded from your perspective was when he was reading something that his aides wrote down for him. Are we settling on that, or do you have something to add?

If you're so smart and articulate, why aren't you a billionaire and president?

[Poopadoop]

Yes, I'm giving up on trying to find Trump speaking intelligently, from the standpoint of being smart

fyp

[BananaStand]

You keep doin you Donny!

[Poopadoop]

Yeah, I got nothin'; he's an idiot. But here's someone saying how effective his idiotic speaking style is with other idiots.

We're used to hearing politicians speaking like they're much more intelligent

lol, no shit.

[BananaStand]

he's an idiot. But here's someone saying how effective his idiotic speaking style is with other idiots

This is just sour grapes because the Democrats thought of this first. Trump just did it better.

[Poopadoop]

This is just sour grapes because the Democrats thought of this first. Trump just did it better.

Ikr. The internet is full of Obama speaking at a fifth grade level.

[BananaStand]

Ikr. The internet is full of Obama speaking at a fifth grade level.

Yup

[Poopadoop]

Yup

Fail.

[BananaStand]

Wut?? Obama looked like he had down syndrome in that debate

[oskar]

Time stamp for down syndrome part pls.

[oskar]

Still waiting for those dumb black bitches who called white women dying their hair black guilty of cultural appropriation, because that definitely happened.

[OngBonga]

All of it. He does look a bit like a retard.

Better would be to point out that you were discussing what he sounds like, not what he looks like. I mean Obama is an ugly fucker, but Trump isn't exactly an oil painting.

I mean, even I'll admit Trump sounds dumb compared to Obama. But Obama sounds like a highly polished politician, which I find much more untrustworthy than someone who just spouts out whatever words come to his mind.

Obama says things because he is trying to manipulate other people. Trump says things because it's what he thinks.

[oskar]

[OngBonga]

Not so much "pompous and faggy", more "dishonest and sinister".

[Poopadoop]

All of it. He does look a bit like a retard.

I'm not really motivated to watch the whole 90 minutes like you did, but I'd like to see some quotes where Obama sounds verbally challenged. I'm not talking about whether you agree with his ideas or not, but rather whether he's able to articulate his thoughts in a coherent manner using the English language.

But Obama sounds like a highly polished politician, which I find much more untrustworthy than someone who just spouts out whatever words come to his mind.

I'm much more inclined to trust a guy who actually stops and thinks before he talks myself. Not because he's being more honest that way, but because it suggests he'll also stop and think before he acts.

Obama says things because he is trying to manipulate other people. Trump says things because it's what he thinks.

All politicians, including Trump, use words to manipulate people. Trump just uses fewer words, garbles them, repeats them more often, and more often says things that are patently stupid.

[oskar]

Not so much "pompous and faggy", more "dishonest and sinister".

Can you give me any specific example where you think Obama is being "dishonest and sinister." Because it sure as hell looks to me as though you see a black man and you're scared. That is genuinely the only reasonable conclusion I have. Banana thinks Trump is smart, and Obama looks like he has down syndrome, and you think Trump is just fine, but Obama was being "dishonest and sinister."
How close are you two to just banging a pot with a stick and shouting "nigger!"

[OngBonga]

Because it sure as hell looks to me as though you see a black man and you're scared.

Dude this seems to be your default argument when someone says something you disagree with. I couldn't give a fuck what colour his skin is, just like I don't give a fuck if Hillary has tits or a dick.

That is genuinely the only reasonable conclusion I have.

Then it's you who's obsessed with skin colour. It's like you think he's immune to not being liked, because he's black, and if someone doesn't like him for no good reason (in your opinion), it's because he's black.

I'll say it again. I do not give a fuck what colour his skin is.

Can you give me any specific example where you think Obama is being "dishonest and sinister.

That's the vibe I get from him. You're entitled to intepret the vibe you get from Trump as you see fit, I'm entitled to think Obama is a shady mofo.

Banana thinks Trump is smart,

I think he is smart. I just don't think he sounds smart.

How close are you two to just banging a pot with a stick and shouting "nigger!"

There is no polite way to say this. You're a fucking idiot. More so that I ever could be. You actually believe what you're saying here. You actually think I'm racist because I don't trust Obama. Well that makes you anti-Enlgish if you don't like me, you xenophobic bastard. Or anti-white. Which is it?

[OngBonga]

I never liked Bush. Never trusted him either. He's a dumbfuck twat, but he was dishonest.

Am I being racist here? No, I'm good, he's white.

[OngBonga]

I would like to apologise to Finland for calling oskar a "fucking idiot". That's unacceptable xenophobic behaviour, and I'm sorry.

[OngBonga]

I'm not really motivated to watch the whole 90 minutes like you did

I didn't. I watched a few seconds, scanned forwards, watched a few more seconds, did that a few times, though to self "yeah he looks a bit retarded" but sadly couldn't conclude he sounded retarded.

I'm much more inclined to trust a guy who actually stops and thinks before he talks myself. Not because he's being more honest that way, but because it suggests he'll also stop and think before he acts.

That's why politicians work hard to appear thougtful and articulate. They know the average person finds it more trustworthy than rash and dumb. But that's because the average person is rash and dumb.

[Poopadoop]

That's why politicians work hard to appear thougtful and articulate. They know the average person finds it more trustworthy than rash and dumb. But that's because the average person is rash and dumb.

Rash and dumb should be more trustworthy than thoughtful and smart?

Sorry, can't get on board with that. I must be rash and dumb.

[OngBonga]

Does anyone remember that guy who studied economics?

What was his name again?

[OngBonga]

I must be rash and dumb.

And with this realisation, you just became slightly less rash and dumb. Only slightly though.

[Poopadoop]

And with this realisation, you just became slightly less rash and dumb. Only slightly though.

Yeah, that makes perfect sense, just like most of your posts.

[OngBonga]

That sounds dangerously close to discrmination against brown haired people. Careful now.

[BananaStand]

Can you give me any specific example where you think Obama is being "dishonest and sinister."

[Poopadoop]

Yeah, that makes perfect sense, just like most of your posts.

Edit: Sorry, I meant rash and dumb. Very admirable.

[BananaStand]

I would like to apologise to Finland for calling oskar a "fucking idiot". That's unacceptable xenophobic behaviour, and I'm sorry.

He's finnish??

Now i get it.....

[OngBonga]

You're Finnish aren't you Oskar? And Jack is Dutch? I'm not making it up in my head am I?

And thanks banana for finding dishonest and sinister stuff from O'Bummer.

If he were Irish I'd get crucified for calling him that. Good job he's Kenyan.

[oskar]

Dude this seems to be your default argument when someone says something you disagree with. I couldn't give a fuck what colour his skin is, just like I don't give a fuck if Hillary has tits or a dick.

I can think of like 10 legitimate reasons to hate Obama off the top of my head. That he sounds like he has down syndrome or seems dishonest and sinister are none of them. There's nobody I could accuse of that and not at least give you a reason.

Let me remind you again that you were in favor of baby jails because some muslim UK citizens were busted in a sex trafficking ring 11 years ago. Still waiting for an explanation how those two are connected.

[OngBonga]

I can think of like 10 legitimate reasons to hate Obama off the top of my head. That he sounds like he has down syndrome or seems dishonest and sinister are none of them. There's nobody I could accuse of that and not at least give you a reason.

I do not feel as though I need to justify my reasons for disliking Obama, and certainly not to shake off your baseless accusations of racism.

Let me remind you again that you were in favor of baby jails because some muslim UK citizens were busted in a sex trafficking ring 11 years ago. Still waiting for an explanation how those two are connected.

Baby jails? You might need to quote me on that.

[BananaStand]

I can think of like 10 legitimate reasons to hate Obama off the top of my head.

Just 10?

That he sounds like he has down syndrome

Dude...you do know what hyperbole is right? if challenged, I do admit that Obama probably does not suffer from actual down syndrome. However, when you were challenged on the "trump is retarded" rhetoric, you emphatically repeated your literal belief that the man at or at least very near the clinical definition of retarded.

He obviously is not retarded, so if you're saying that, I guess I can only conclude that you're a racist.

or seems dishonest and sinister

This is my literal #1. The IRS thing should have been the scandal of the century, but you know who invoked "executive privelege" (which is supposed to be for national security reasons, not cover your ass reasons). I can't think of anything more dishonest and sinister a president in my lifetime has done.

There's nobody I could accuse of that and not at least give you a reason.

You've been given reasons. For some reason anything that might interfere with your racist worldview doesn't seem to register.

[OngBonga]

oskar, aren't you the one in favour of baby jails? I mean, if two criminal parents go to jail, I assume you think the child should remain in the care of one of the parents? I make the assumption based on your opposition to "separating families". I can only conlude that you think there should be prisons specifically designed to house parents and babies, which could be coined a "baby jail".

Or perhaps you think criminals should be allowed to get away with breaking the law by simply pointing to their child.

[Poopadoop]

I'm still waiting to see a video of Trump speaking intelligently. But thanks for posting the Obama one, it's good to know not everyone you elect is a moron.

[Poopadoop]

oskar, aren't you the one in favour of baby jails? I mean, if two criminal parents go to jail, I assume you think the child should remain in the care of one of the parents? I make the assumption based on your opposition to "separating families". I can only conlude that you think there should be prisons specifically designed to house parents and babies, which could be coined a "baby jail".

Or perhaps you think criminals should be allowed to get away with breaking the law by simply pointing to their child.

Not sure if this has been explained to you, but in the US there are felonies (which you go to prison for) and misdemeanors (which you don't). Felonies are things like murder, rape, arson, etc.; misdemeanors are shoplifting, speeding, jaywalking, etc. And being in the country illegally is considered by law a misdemeanor.

So, unless you think people should be put in prison for shoplifting and separated from their children, then it's hard to justify applying such a policy to illegal immigrants.

And if you DO think shoplifters and others who commit misdemeanors should be jailed, then you might want to consider that a civilized state has a responsibility to rehome their children with another family, not keep them in a separate prison daycare for kids.

Add on top of that the fact that many of those jailed and separated are seeking refugee status, were later allowed to go free (when there was no justification for jailing them in the first place, since their 'crime' was at most a misdemeanor, if it was a crime at all), and then remained separated from their kids because someone couldn't be bothered to do some paperwork to record which kids belonged with which adults, then you might wonder what kind of callous retard is running the show.

After this, when the courts tell this callous retard his policy is illegal and inhumane, and force him to halt it, and then you see a video of that same callous retard tossing paper towels to hurricane victims, it all starts to make sense.

[OngBonga]

He comes across as more intelligent than Sarah Palin.

Admittedly I know which one I'd rather chuck my nut muck over, but that's not the debate.

[OngBonga]

So, unless you think people should be put in prison for shoplifting and separated from their children, then it's hard to justify applying such a policy to illegal immigrants.

Ok, so what happens if a shoplifter is caught stealing while with a baby? What if that shopfliter needs to be arrested and questioned? At the instant you take the child into the care of the police, you are "separating families".

a civilized state has a responsibility to rehome their children with another family, not keep them in a separate prison daycare for kids.

I'd be inclined to agree here. What do you mean by "prison daycare"? Are these children cared for by professionals in an environment fit for purpose?

...because someone couldn't be bothered to do some paperwork to record which kids belonged with which adults

Is this really happening?

After this, when the courts tell this callous retard his policy is illegal and inhumane, and force him to halt it, and then you see a video of a callous retard tossing paper towels to hurricane victims, it all starts to make sense.

Callous? Has he exploited a natural disaster for his own personal financial benefit yet? Has he got around to creating his own foundation for that purpose?

[Poopadoop]

He comes across as more intelligent than Sarah Palin.

Admittedly I know which one I'd rather chuck my nut muck over, but that's not the debate.

That video is at least 15 years old.

Also, being less of a retard than Sarah Palin is nothing to bang the drum about.

[BananaStand]

I'm still waiting to see a video of Trump speaking intelligently.

BUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRNNNNNNNNNNNNN

[Poopadoop]

Ok, so what happens if a shoplifter is caught stealing while with a baby? What if that shopfliter needs to be arrested and questioned? At the instant you take the child into the care of the police, you are "separating families".

Why do you have to take the child away from a shoplifter while you question them? And even if you do, we'd be talking at most an hour, not weeks and months of separation.

I'd be inclined to agree here. What do you mean by "prison daycare"?

Camps with fences around them and/or large cages.

Are these children cared for by professionals in an environment fit for purpose?

Are they being clothed and fed? Yes. Are they getting anything else? No.

Is this really happening?

It was before the courts got involved, yes.

Callous? Has he exploited a natural disaster for his own personal financial benefit yet? Has he got around to creating his own foundation for that purpose?

Are those the only things that count as callous? How about enacting a policy like the one I described above (seeing as that was the context in which I used the word 'callous')?

[Poopadoop]

BUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRNNNNNNNNNNNNN

A whole sentence - amazing!

And another promise he didn't keep, the fucking liar.

[BananaStand]

And being in the country illegally is considered by law a misdemeanor.

Actually a first offense border crossing is a misdemeanor, and actually IS punishable by prison. Subsequent offenses are felonies, and are punishable by more prison. Nice try there. But just saying things in a way that makes it sound like you know what the fuck your'e talking about doesn't mean you know what the fuck you're talking about.

[Poopadoop]

Oh, and I almost forgot - the callous retard forced children as young as 4 to represent themselves in court immigration proceedings. Guess how many four year olds are professional lawyers?

[Poopadoop]

Actually a first offense border crossing is a misdemeanor, and actually IS punishable by prison. Subsequent offenses are felonies, and are punishable by more prison. Nice try there. But just saying things in a way that makes it sound like you know what the fuck your'e talking about doesn't mean you know what the fuck you're talking about.

Tell it to the judge who forced the separation policy to end.

Oh wait, I'm sure he's a liberal crybaby snowflake 'cause he doesn't want to see families separated over a misdemeanor.

[BananaStand]

then remained separated from their kids because someone couldn't be bothered to do some paperwork to record which kids belonged with which adults,.

Again, you're just pretending like you know what the fuck you're talking about. You dont KNOW that it has anything to do with paperwork.

here's a more likely explanation....

Those kids were separated from their families LONG before they ever got near the border. Obviously the coyotes and cartels that are smuggling things and people across the border know that if they are with a kid, they don't go to jail. Maybe these bleedin' heart policies have created a perverse incentive for criminals to use children as decoys.

Or....if that's not the case, and they had always assumed that bringing a kid would not insulate them from imprisonment, then that means this stuff has been going on long before Trump. So why is it suddenly such an issue now?

[Poopadoop]

Of course, you CAN jail someone for a misdemeanor illegal entry, just like you CAN jail someone for shoplifting. But most non-retards realize that's a severe punishment for a misdemeanor, and not one that you should apply by default.

[BananaStand]

After this, when the courts tell this callous retard his policy is illegal and inhumane, and force him to halt it.

totally not what happened. Again, you're PRETENDING to know what the fuck you're talking about.

Trump didn't create any new policy. He just called for a zero-tolerance enforcement of existing laws. So it's not like the courts could do fuck about it. And when it went bad he said "WTF you want from me? If you don't like the law, change the fucking law congress!!"

And the republicans drafted a bill to address the problem. then the democrats said "no way we are letting the republicans be the hero on this. Yeah we're concerned about kids, but we care more about politics so we're gonna dig our heels in and get the media to keep blaming trump"

Then Trump issued an executive order. Problem solved.

[Poopadoop]

Again, you're just pretending like you know what the fuck you're talking about.

Just because something doesn't agree with your worldview doesn't mean it's incorrect.

You dont KNOW that it has anything to do with paperwork.

Authorities made the decision to take children from their parents without a plan to reunite families, resulting in numerous cases of parents and children having no contact since being forcefully separated.[15][16] Following national and international criticism, on June 20 President Trump signed an executive order ending family separations at the border.

There's a more likely explanation....according to Fox News...blah blah blah human trafficking, blah blah, criminal gangs, blah blah

It's easy to come up with excuses and alternate facts. The problem is it doesn't change anything, it just obfuscates the issue for lowbrows who don't want to believe their gov't deliberately acted this way.

And I seem to remember you saying it was ok to separate kids from parents if it would deter immigration, so not sure why you're now so keen to show they weren't doing it.

[Poopadoop]

Trump didn't create any new policy. He just called for a zero-tolerance enforcement of existing laws.

Zero-tolerance enforcement was the new policy. Try not to get stuck on the big words.

So it's not like the courts could do fuck about it. And when it went bad he said "WTF you want from me? If you don't like the law, change the fucking law congress!!"

Lol, and that convinced who? I mean besides you and other Fox News fans.

To say 'I'm just enforcing the existing laws to their fullest, even though those laws are unfair and cruel, so it's not my fault I chose to change the policy from lax enforcement to zero tolerance' is about as disingenuous as it gets.

And the republicans drafted a bill to address the problem. then the democrats said "no way we are letting the republicans be the hero on this. Yeah we're concerned about kids, but we care more about politics so we're gonna dig our heels in and get the media to keep blaming trump"

Then Trump issued an executive order. Problem solved.

You're not kidding anyone.

Lol, Trump is the hero for changing a law that only began being enforced with zero tolerance once he decided it should be, never before. That's some kind of tap dance around the facts there.

How about just not changing the existing policy in the first place and avoiding the whole kerfuffle?

[OngBonga]

poop, there's a difference between shoplifting and gaining illegal entry into a foreign country. The shoplifter has a home to go to.

Do you think the state should allow child and parent to roam the streets? Perhaps you think the state should provide services for criminals trying to cross borders illegally?

The illegal immigrant is detained, that's standard in any country, not just USA. Try going to, idk, Iceland without your passport and tell them you want to work there. When you're arrested and detained, point out that it's a misdemeanor and you should be allowed to go about your business.

Camps with fences around them and/or large cages.

To stop the children from escaping?

Are they being clothed and fed? Yes. Are they getting anything else? No.

Source please. If true, outrage is fair enough. They should be fed, clothed, cleansed, educated, entertained, cared for in a secure environment staffed with people who care about the wellbeing of children, regardless of their migrant status. I'm not interested if it's a compund with barbed wire around it, that's irrelevant.

It was before the courts got involved, yes.

Again, I share outrage at not being professional and accurate with records when dealing with this matter.

But I have no idea what workable solution you have that doesn't involve separation of families. It's like you think these people are doing nothing wrong, that they are not breaking serious laws by attempting to enter foreign states illegally. You throw the word "misdenemour" about like it's akin to smoking a joint. I'm not interested if you like borders or not, but right now, in this moment in time, they exist. They are national boundries, and a government has a DUTY to protect them. Anyone attempting to cross illegally is subject to detention. With that in mind, if you try to cross anyway, get caught and have your child taken away while you are detained, then you are responsible for the separation of your family, not those protecting the border.

What's your solution?

[Poopadoop]

poop, there's a difference between shoplifting and gaining illegal entry into a foreign country. The shoplifter has a home to go to.

So?

Do you think the state should allow child and parent to roam the streets? Perhaps you think the state should provide services for criminals trying to cross borders illegally?

The previous default was called 'catch and release'. You'd give them a summons to go to immigration court, where they could present their case. And if they didn't show up they were ordered deported. If they did show up and could convince the court they deserved refugee status or presented their documents, they were allowed to stay.

The Trump policy was to separate the families, throw the kids in camps, put the parents in different camps, and not be too bothered about whether the parents and kids ended up together at the end of it all.

The illegal immigrant is detained, that's standard in any country, not just USA. Try going to, idk, Iceland without your passport and tell them you want to work there. When you're arrested and detained, point out that it's a misdemeanor and you should be allowed to go about your business.

Is the alleged illegal immigrant separated from their children while the courts figure out their status? Don't think so, except as a last resort.

migrant-us-2.jpg

What's your solution?

Keep the families together as often as possible, like every other country that claims to be civilized, and like they did before Trump went all 'zomfg zero-tolerance on immigrants'

If you absolutely must jail thousands of alleged illegal immigrants a year, then first prepare places to house them as families, not just large cages for adults and other large cages for their children.

[OngBonga]

So?

So... do I have to state the obvious? Where do illegal immigrants go after they have been interviewed?

The previous default was called 'catch and release'.

This is not a deterrant to criminals who already know they will not be allowed to stay. And criminals are the kind of people who try to cross borders illegally.

The Trump policy was to separate the families, throw the kids in camps, put the parents in different camps, and not be too bothered about whether the parents and kids ended up together at the end of it all.

The Trump policy is to not trust illegal immigrants who try to cross borders illegally. The family separation, that is on the adults who make the decision to try to cross borders illegally.

Is the alleged illegal immigrant separated from their children while the courts figure out their status? Don't think so, except as a last resort.

I dunno, I've never tried to cross a border illegally, so to be honest I'm not sure how easy it is in countries other than USA. I'm just assuming I'd be detained until I face a court, since if I was not, if I were told to show up at court and until then enjoy your stay, well now I have a choice.

Keep the families together as often as possible, like every other country that claims to be civilized, and like they did before Trump went all 'zomfg zero-tolerance on immigrants'

What, like those camps in Calais? Civilised.

You didn't come up with a plan. All you did there was suggest families shouldn't be separated, and then took a swipe at Trump. But you offered no solution.

[Poopadoop]

criminals are the kind of people who try to cross borders illegally.

So are refugees and people fleeing war zones, like many of the Central Americans caught trying to go to the US. Strangely, they don't stop to think about mailing away for a visa while people are getting killed all around them.

The Trump policy is to not trust illegal immigrants who try to cross borders illegally. The family separation, that is on the adults who make the decision to try to cross borders illegally.

You can't just put that on the refugees, and absolve the people who are doing the separating. It's like saying 'well a lot of the refugees have a choice between staying in a war zone and seeking refugee status or being illegal immigrants, it's not our fault if given a choice between possibly having their chidren killed and possibly having their children separated from them they still come here. What are we supposed to do, keep families together like other countries do?'

What, like those camps in Calais? Civilised.

There's a huge logistical difference between Calais (or for that matter the Hungary/Croatian border, or Turkey/Syria, or whatever, where there was a sudden surge of refugees, and the US where there are about the same number of illegal immigrants entering each year. Maybe ask yourself why this family separation issue suddenly became a problem specifically in the US specifically at the same time Trump went with zero-tolerance, because that's kinda the whole point here. It's not a discussion of how to handle a flood of refugees. We can discuss that another day if you like, but it's not really relevant to anything but whataboutism here.

You didn't come up with a plan. All you did there was suggest families shouldn't be separated, and then took a swipe at Trump. But you offered no solution.

First, not separating the families was my plan.

Second, I'm not in charge so I'm not responsible for having a plan. I already have a job. Trump's administration is in charge and so they're responsible. They had an existing plan which they inherited that had been in use for decades that they didn't like. But rather than work to replace it with something that would detain illegals/refugees while keeping families intact, they chose to discourage illegals/refugees by deliberately and cruelly separating families, while neglecting to keep adequate records of family members so they could be reunited in good time, if ever. You may think that's a fine plan; I think it's a human rights abuse.

[OngBonga]

So are refugees and people fleeing war zones, like many of the Central Americans caught trying to go to the US. Strangely, they don't stop to think about mailing away for a visa while people are getting killed all around them.

You might have to provide me with a list of nations at war in South America, because the BBC only ever seem to mention Venezuela.

You can't just put that on the refugees, and absolve the people who are doing the separating.

Ok so if I barge into your house holding a baby, and say I'm stopping until I have my own place, when you call the police, you're the one separating me from my family. It wasn't me breaking the law.

You're using the word "refugee" to desrcibe an economic migrant. Let's get back to talking about migrants, not refugees. Is Mexico at war?

Maybe ask yourself why this family separation issue suddenly became a problem specifically in the US specifically at the same time Trump went with zero-tolerance

Because people made screeching noises when border law was suddenly upheld.

It's not a discussion of how to handle a flood of refugees economic migrants. We can discuss that another day if you like, but it's not really relevant to anything but whataboutism here.

FYP

Call them what they are poop, don't be disingenuous.

First, not separating the families was my plan.

It's not a plan. That's like me saying my plan for the future is to get rich.

I think you're just going to release them into the community and hope they don't do bad things. Further, you're not a bad person, so you can't just turn them onto the street. You're going to need to provide housing, and of course healthcare, education, food, water, perhaps a car. I'm sure there's no homless problem amongst your own citizens, just let more homeless people in and give them priority.

But rather than work to replace it with something that would detain illegals/refugees while keeping families intact

How do you even type this?

Your plan is to call economic migrants "refugees" and guilt the taxpayer into rewarding their criminal behaviour.

[Poopadoop]

...economic migrants

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ekers-violence

[OngBonga]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ekers-violence

None of El Salvador, Honduras or Guatemala share a border with USA. If they are fleeing war, they are refugees until they enter a nation that isn't at war. If they then continue to another country they would rather reside in, they become economic migrants. If they try to do so illegally, from a nation where they are not in danger and are able to properly apply for residence in USA, then they are criminals.

We're seeing this in Europe. Refugees enter Italy, then try to get into Germany, France or the UK. Well they're not fleeing war it Italy, they are making a choice based on economics that they would like to continue their journey.

Let's not forget we're talking about ILLEGAL immigrants here, we're talking about people who made a choice to commit a crime instead of going the legal route. I'm not talking about people who are making a decision based on life and death, because that's not a real choice. If someone is fleeing Mexico because the Cartel want them dead, ok, I can accept the term "refugee". If someone enters Mexico from El Salvador and then applies for residence in USA, then maybe "refugee" is acceptable. But if someone enters Mexico, and then enters USA illegally, they are a criminal, and probably an economic migrant, because they seek better opportunities than Mexico offers. And they are doing so in a manner that lacks respect for the law and soveriegn integrity of the nation you are seeking to settle in. Not a good start.

People want to go to USA because of the opportunities it offers. That's economics.

[BananaStand]

None of El Salvador, Honduras or Guatemala share a border with USA. If they are fleeing war, they are refugees until they enter a nation that isn't at war. If they then continue to another country they would rather reside in, they become economic migrants. If they try to do so illegally, from a nation where they are not in danger and are able to properly apply for residence in USA, then they are criminals.

I was busy this weekend, so didn't get a chance to post exactly this. Well played Ong.

You can't already be in fucking Mexico, and then still need asylum.

[Poopadoop]

I was busy this weekend, so didn't get a chance to post exactly this. Well played Ong.

You can't already be in fucking Mexico, and then still need asylum.

Lol, like you can only seek asylum in countries that border the one you're fleeing. Unless you have a plane. Or a boat.

Get real.

These kinds of arguments just show the desperation of people trying to defend the child-separation policy. First, all the immigrants are child traffickers, gang members, and other "bad hombres". Now when it's pointed out a lot of them are actually refugees fleeing violence in their own country, then the story changes into 'their economic migrants seeking to get rich off American taxpayers; we must stop them by dislocating them from their children'

Pathetic.

[OngBonga]

So what you're saying is, if you're fleeing a war, you can pick your preferred destination off the globe, and maintain your refugee status? And even if you try to get into that country illegally, you're still morally in the right and should be treated with sympathy?

Why do they want to go to a country they do not share a border with? Why do they want to go to a country where the majority do not speak their language?

Economics.

Refugees and economic migrants are very different things. You can be blinded by sympathy all you like, and it's kind of admirable, but it's you who needs to get real.

[OngBonga]

then the story changes into 'their economic migrants seeking to get rich off American taxpayers

That's not what I said. They want to go and work in America, because it's the best economic option in their region. But you're suggesting the taxpayer should foot the bill for their stay in hotels or whatever while they are processed having entered the country illegally. That's crazy.

They should be detained while they are processed, and any children they brought along with them should be put into appropriate care.